Ellen Page objects to calling “Juno” a “pro-life movie”
Related Articles
-
A Futurama Life is a Deprived Life
10 January 2008 12:25 PM | 4 CommentsThe world of tomorrow often looks, in our minds, like a time that is far more exciting, pleasurable, and fulfilling. We look at our present struggles, our contemporary dilemmas, and we hope that tomorrow will be better.
Read More -
Juno’s Nagging Voice
09 January 2008 11:41 AM | 6 CommentsIn the first scene of Juno, a girl drinks Tang, walks through a hand-drawn cartoon credit sequence, and has a high-speed and ironic conversation with a convenience store clerk. Immediately, I'm thinking this movie is in trouble. Like a lot of people, I've grown tired of the ironic cynicism displayed in many of the most recent films and television shows. While I enjoy many of the shows that and films that started the fad, the onslaught of one-dimensional copycats has been unfortunate.
Read More -
Your Life in 12 Words or Less: the Dehumanizing Effect of Facebook Profiles, Personal Ads, and Eulogies
22 November 2007 1:26 PM | 4 CommentsI like to talk. In general, I feel that I usually know what the right thing is to say to a person when they need advice or admonishment. But there's one situation where I don't know if I'll ever have the right words: when a person has lost a loved one. What is there to say that could ever come close to what they are going through? The sorrow, the questions, the guilt, the shock, what words exist that could be shaped to be commensurate to their experience? As difficult as these situations are, imagine if it was your job to summarize the entire life of a person within one or two sentences, not to offer eulogies or condolences, but to give readers or viewers a succinct statement that expressed what the person did with their life. Whenever I read of a murder, a suicide, or an accident, I try to note how the reporter sums up the life of a once living human in 12 words or less.
Read More -
In Praise of Film
15 January 2008 6:29 PM | 10 CommentsOne problem with much of the Christian commentary on the arts is that it treats every medium essentially the same. Television, music, film, stage, the internet, literature, and illustrated novels are all treated vaguely as one giant neutral monolith by which culture influences weak Christians. The truth is that these mediums are drastically different in what their primary uses are, how they are received, the amount of influence they can have, and their conditioning effects on our culture.
Read More
Richard H. Clark (Co-Founder/Editor-in-Chief) has spent his entire life writing, reading, listening, and playing. He has a Bachelors in Theology from the Baptist College of Florida and has a Master of Arts in Theology and the Arts from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is fascinated with the extent to which popular culture influences real people. He and his wife currently live in Louisville, KY where he is the classroom technology manager at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Email: deadyetliving [at] gmail [dot] com. Twitter: @christandpc. Xbox Live: deadyetliving 
I think it speaks to the political desperation of our culture that a movie like Juno or even Knocked Up should be adorned with political terms. As if a movie in which a character has an abortion and goes on to live a happy life is necessarily Pro-Choice or a movie in which a couple decides to carry a pregnancy to term is necessarily Pro-Life.
These are wholly political terms and don’t mean much outside of a political context (note how little each term actually connects with the reality of what it is arguing for—one might as well rename each position Anti-Life and Anti-Freedom for all the honesty there is in the propaganda). The only way that films should be labeled with such terms is if the creators of the film expressly articulated a particular agenda that coincides with such political terminologies.
If the makers of Juno wanted to make a film about a girl who carries a baby to term and gives it up for adoption because they believed it wrong to abort a pregnancy and wanted to present a Pro-Life message, THEN one would be justified in claiming the movie for that particular political stance. Without that intended articulation, the labeler is just politically desperate and far too caught up in their own political needs.
Yet, you must agree that in this post-modern world, it doesn’t matter what the artist intended. The fact is that she chose to carry the baby to term despite being 16 and having little perspective on life. The same thing in knocked up Katherine Heigel’s character keeps the child despite its potentially harmful effect on her career, the deadbeat-quite disgusting-no incomed dad.
The fetus and subsequently the baby win. Both movies edify the “choice” aspect of pregnancy yet both women made a choice for the baby. YAY. Hopefully the movies will in some small way inspire change in the lives of some young women who are knocked up and don’t know what to do.
@jaytheson: Actually, I don’t have to agree about that aspect of the, quote-unquote, post-modern world. I’ve argued long and hard in other quarters that that particular post-structuralist reading of meaning is pretty laughable.
Sure, people can create “value-added” meanings for communicative expressions such as film or literature, but those readings are not inherent in the text but only in the reader. My imagining that Juno is political doesn’t make it so. What it does do is mean that I am political and am forcing my agenda upon the vessel of the author’s communication.
Of course everyone does this as they interpret texts, forcing their unique reading upon the text, but to describe a text outside its intent is inane. Of all the good to come out of post-modernity, this is one of the paradigm’s dumber assertions.
To strike the middle ground here, I would say that it is at least reasonable to interpret Juno as supporting a view of life as sacred.
I agree that calling it “pro-life” in the political sense is going too far, but still there is that very deliberate scene where the main character leaves the abortion clinic after becoming overwhelmed with people using their fingernails, the specific body part that she was told her baby had already grown–according to the pro-life protester.
It is hardly laughable. But painfully true.
There is a whole menu of world events, movies, books, paintings, and the like that have taken on a life outside the bounds of their creators “intent”.
Even if Jason Reitman intended Juno to be just a cute portrayal of a high school girl coping with being pregnant, there is a whole host of things in the movie that can inspire, intrigue, provoke, and engage the viewer anew in the world around them.
It is a beautiful thing, as it levels the playing field for ideas and allows for more people to enter the intellectual market place. Maybe “intellectuals” don’t like the competition or the fact that in some way their “expert” status has eroded.
As I am attending graduate school in a PhD program I must say I anger at dumb ideas and people missing what I perceive to be the point of something. I acknowledge there is an inherent beauty in admiring a work of art or world events in light of its historical and philosophical trappings and reveling in the artistry and genius of the author. That is definitely cool.
Maybe we can agree on that point. I am not trying to start a war over modern vs post-modernism or even going through a long, drawn out skirmish over the criticism post-modernism faces. Heck, I don’t even know if it exists sometimes as an ACTUAL thing. I used the term “post modern world” in the first post to tap into this idea that something has changed in the lives of people living in Western Civilization. We all have greater access to information. We all are more skeptical of authority. Yadda Yadda Yadda.
My point in the first post, put more mildly was simply to highlight that I don’t think the Reitman’s intent should trump on what the people are saying about it. It is what it is. If people in the political realm wouldn’t have fought over the pro-life, pro-choice line for so long and still do, this wouldn’t be an issue. You are right that it seems absurd that the two should be connected, but it is just as absurd that the two sides have been fighting like they have for so long.
The abortion debate is a “cultural” divide and that is something the experts have thoroughly pushed into the American intellectual market place. “You can’t be both”, so when you have a film where abortion is rejected, it will naturally, maybe even regrettably, fall into that same rut in the eyes of many.
The best way to rid ourselves of it, is to rid ourselves of the political distinction all together. Maybe we should write our congressman and senators.
@Alan – Change sacred to “worth something” and you’ve got yourself a deal.
@jaytheson – You actually kinda argued my point for me when you said:
This is exactly right. These things take on lives outside of themselves when we read our own contrived meaning into them. There is nothing wrong with this—in fact, I operate like this consistently on a daily basis.
The key is to recognize that it is not the text that changes or holds these multiplied interpretations (what I think we errantly call “meanings”) but the readers.
I think I can agree with you that the author’s intent shouldn’t trump reader interpretation. But I think we should recognize each for what it is and not imagine that interpretation has any influence on what a text inherently is. The text is unchanging but the interpretations are fluid.
Therefore, while it is appropriate to say that one appreciates the presentation of an option outside of abortion when confronting a teen pregnancy because it conforms to a more-pleasant view of the world, it is less appropriate to claim that the film actually makes a political statement (which is what one says when they apply the political label). I think it’s even appropriate to say that one believes Reitman was unconsciously making a political statement (and then offer evidences to support the claim).
I just don’t think we should be confusing meaning with interpretation. Or vice versa.
I get your distinction now.
I agree that claiming Reitman intended to create a pro-life film may indeed be a gross violation of his original purpose in creating the film.
Well said.
By the way, I have been enjoying the content on your web site immensely. You are a very good writer.
Some of your stories fit quite nicely into the “post-modern” genre ;)
@Rich – Hm, do you think you could toy with some style changes to make the <blockquote> a little less awkward to read?
Maybe a text-align:left;padding-left:2.5em; or something. The right-alignment is a neat idea but I think it would work better if the comment columns were smaller. With these spacious columns (which I very much prefer), the right-alignment always looks kinda funny to me. Maybe you see what I mean, maybe not ^_^
IF you’re interested in fiddling, here’s a possible way to work a style change into your sheet. Drop something like this (not necessarily this, but something like this) right after line 181 in the Comment Area styles section:
@jaytheson – Hey thanks!